美国两届总统 反恐战争换汤不换药

Few have given as much thought as Barack Obama to the pitfalls of waging open-ended war on an abstract noun. On top of its impracticalities – how can you ever declare victory? – fighting a nebulous enemy exacts an insidious toll. Mr Obama built much of his presidential appeal on such a critique – the global war on terror was eroding America’s legal rights at home and its moral capital abroad. The term “GWOT” was purged the moment he took over from George W Bush. In his pledge last week to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, known as Isis, he has travelled almost full circle. It is precisely because Mr Obama is a reluctant warrior that his legacy will be enduring.

对基于一个抽象名词发动的无限制战争会遇到的困难，没有几个人考虑得像巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)那样多。除了实际操作上的问题（怎样才算打赢了战争），与不明确的敌人作战还会带来潜在的负面影响。奥巴马作为总统的吸引力在很大程度上建立在这样一种评论上：全球反恐战争正在侵蚀美国国内的合法权利及其在国外的道德资本。从小布什(George W Bush)手中接过总统大权后，奥巴马立刻抛弃了“全球反恐战争”一词。但不久前，他发誓要“削弱并最终摧毁”伊拉克和黎凡特伊斯兰国(ISIS)。就这样，在兜了一大圈后，他几乎又回到了原点。之所以这么说，完全是因为奥巴马是一位不情愿的斗士，而他留下的东西将是持久的。

The reality is the US war on terror has succeeded where it was supposed to. Mr Bush’s biggest innovation was to set up the Department of Homeland Security. If you chart domestic terror attempts in the US since September 11 2001, they have become increasingly low-tech and ineffectual. From the foiled Detroit airliner attack in Mr Obama’s first year to the Boston marathon bombings in his fifth, each attempt has been more amateur than the last. The same is true of America’s allies. There has been no significant attack in Europe since London’s July 7 bombings nine years ago. Western publics have acclimatised to an era of tighter security.

事实上，美国反恐战争在既定目标上取得了成功。小布什的最大创新是设立了国土安全部(Department of Homeland Security)。如果你把2001年9月11日以来美国国内的恐怖企图列一张表，你会发现它们的技术含量越来越低、效果越来越差。从奥巴马上任头一年被挫败的底特律民航客机恐怖袭击案，到他在任第5年发生的波士顿马拉松爆炸案，每次恐袭企图都比上一次更加业余。同样的结论也适用于美国的盟国。自9年前的7月7日伦敦发生爆炸案以来，欧洲没有发生任何重大恐怖袭击案。西方民众已经适应了这个安保更为严密的时代。

If this is the balance sheet of the US war on terror, why lose sleep? Chiefly because it understates the costs. The biggest of these is the damage an undeclared war is doing to the west’s grasp on reality. Myopic thinking leads to bad decisions. Mr Obama pointedly avoided using the word “war” last week. Although there are more than 1,000 US military personnel in Iraq, and more than 160 US air strikes in the past month, he insisted on calling his plan to destroy Isis a “campaign”. Likewise, the US uniforms are those of “advisers” and “trainers”. These kinds of euphemism lead to mission creep. If you embark on something with your eyes half-open, you are likelier to lose your way.

如果这就是美国反恐战争的“资产负债表”，为什么还要为此夜不能寐呢？原因主要是，这张“资产负债表”低估了代价。其中最大的代价是，一场不宣而战的战争正在损害西方对现实的把握。短视的思维导致糟糕的决策。在近日的讲话中，奥巴马刻意避免使用“战争”一词。尽管目前美国在伊拉克部署了逾1000名军事人员，尽管美国一个月以来发动了逾160次空袭，但他仍坚持将其摧毁ISIS的计划称为一场“战役”。类似地，美方人员所穿制服也都是“顾问”和“教员”的制服。这种委婉的用词导致任务偏离了原来的方向。如果你走路时眼睛只睁开一半，你显然更容易迷路。

In 2011 Mr Obama inadvertently helped to lay the ground for today’s vicious insurgency by withdrawing US forces from Iraq too soon. He left a vacuum and called it peace. Now he is tiptoeing back with his fingers crossed. The same reluctance to look down the road may well be repeating itself in Afghanistan. Mr Obama went out of his way last week to say that the Isis campaign would have no impact on his timetable to end the US combat mission in Afghanistan. The only difference between Iraq in 2011 and Afghanistan today is that you can see the Taliban coming. Nor does it take great insight to picture the destabilisation of Pakistan. In contrast to the Isis insurgency, which very few predicted, full-blown crises in Afghanistan and Pakistan are easy to imagine. So too is the gradual escalation of America’s re-engagement in Iraq.

2011年，奥巴马过早地将美军从伊拉克撤出，无意间为今日肆虐的叛乱活动创造了条件。他留下了一个真空，并将之称为和平。如今，他小心翼翼地重返伊拉克，祈祷能够一切顺利。在阿富汗，这种不愿以长远眼光看待问题的做法很可能正在重演。不久前，奥巴马特地表示，打击ISIS的战役不会对他制定的、结束美在阿富汗作战任务的时间表产生任何影响。2011年的伊拉克与今日的阿富汗之间的唯一区别是，你能够预见到塔利班会成为一个麻烦。预见到巴基斯坦的动荡也不需要多大的洞察力。几乎没什么人预见到了ISIS的叛乱，与之相反，阿富汗和巴基斯坦爆发全面危机是不难想象的。同样不难想象的是，美国重新介入伊拉克事务的力度会逐步加大。

Mr Obama’s detractors on both right and left want him to come clean – the US has declared war on Isis. Why else would his administration vow to follow it “to the gates of hell”, in the words of Joe Biden, the vice-president? Last year, Mr Obama called on Congress to repeal the law authorising military action against al-Qaeda that was passed just after 9/11. “Unless we discipline our thinking . . . we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight,” he said. Mr Obama is already vulnerable to what he warned against. His administration is basing its authority to attack Isis on the same unrepealed 2001 law.

奥巴马的批评者——无论是右翼的还是左翼的——希望他能承认：美国已向ISIS宣战。不然的话，奥巴马政府还有何理由发誓要将ISIS追到“地狱门口”（引号里引用的是美国副总统乔•拜登(Joe Biden)说的话）？去年，奥巴马曾呼吁美国国会废除授权对基地组织(al-Qaeda)动武的法律——该法是“九一一”袭击后不久通过的。当时，他说：“如果不管束我们的思维……我们可能会被拖入更多我们不需要打的战争。”如今，人们很容易拿奥巴马当时的警告回过头来抨击他。奥巴马政府向ISIS发动攻击的权力，正是通过那部未被废除的2001年的法律获得的。

Why does America need to destroy Isis? The case for containment – as opposed to war – has received little airing. But it is persuasive. The main objection is that destroying Isis will be impossible without a far larger US land force, which would be a cure worse than the disease. Fewer than 1,000 Isis insurgents were able to banish an Iraqi army force of 30,000 from Mosul in June – and they were welcomed by its inhabitants. Last week Mr Obama hailed the formation of a more inclusive Iraqi government under Haider al-Abadi. But it has fewer Sunni members than the last one. Nouri al-Maliki, the former prime minister, has been kept on in government.

美国为何需要摧毁ISIS？对ISIS采取遏制而非诉诸战争的主张没有得到多少公开讨论。这种主张其实是有说服力的。对于摧毁ISIS，主要的反对意见是，美国若不大幅增加地面部队人数，就不可能摧毁ISIS，而那么做引起的麻烦比既有的麻烦还要大。今年6月，一支不足1000人的ISIS叛军曾成功将3万人的伊拉克军队赶出摩苏尔，并受到了摩苏尔居民的欢迎。近日，奥巴马称赞伊拉克组成了以海德尔•阿巴迪(Haider al-Abadi)为首的、更具包容性的新政府。但这个新政府中的逊尼派成员比上届政府还要少。伊拉克前总理努里•马利基(Nouri al-Maliki)也在新政府中保有一席之地。

The task of conjuring a legitimate Iraqi government looks like child’s play against that of building up a friendly Syrian army. Mr Obama has asked Congress for money to train 3,000 Syrian rebels – a goal that will take months to bear fruit. Isis now commands at least 20,000 fighters. Then there are America’s reluctant allies. Turkey does not want to help in any serious way. Saudi Arabia’s support is lukewarm. Israel is sceptical. Iran, whose partnership Mr Obama has not sought, is waiting for whatever windfalls drop in its lap. The same applies to Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s president.

与打造出一支友好的叙利亚军队相比，攒出一个合法的伊拉克政府简直是小事一桩。奥巴马已要求美国国会拨款培训3000名叙利亚叛军，这一目标要好几个月才能见效。而ISIS如今麾下至少有2万名战士。此外，美国还要面对不太情愿的盟友。土耳其并不想认真帮忙。沙特阿拉伯的支持也不冷不热。以色列则持怀疑态度。至于奥巴马未寻求建立合作关系的伊朗，则正等着从中收获意外的好处。叙利亚总统巴沙尔•阿萨德(Bashar al-Assad)也抱有同样的想法。

Whose army – if not America’s – will chase Isis to the “gates of hell”? Which takes us back to where we started. Mr Obama wants to destroy an entity he says does not yet pose a direct threat to the US. Mr Bush called that pre-emptive war. Mr Obama’s administration calls it a counterinsurgency campaign. Is it a distinction without a difference?

如果将ISIS追到“地狱之门”的不是美国的军队，还有哪国军队会这么做？这个问题把我们带回到了起点。奥巴马想摧毁一个按他所说尚未直接威胁到美国的实体。小布什曾将之称为先发制人的战争。奥巴马政府则称之为平叛战役。这难道不是一种没有差别的“区别”吗？

The US president’s aim is to stop Isis before it becomes a threat to the homeland. History suggests the bigger risk is the severe downside of another Middle Eastern adventure.

这位美国总统的目标，是在ISIS对美国本土构成威胁前阻止它。历史经验表明，更大的风险在于，又一次中东冒险所蕴含的严重不利因素。

It is hard to doubt Mr Obama’s sincerity. It is his capacity to wade through the fog of war that is in question.

奥巴马的诚意不容置疑。有疑问的是他是否具备努力走出战争迷雾的能力。